MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Kevin Lamoureux

Follow by RSS

Lamoureux, a parliamentary secretary to the House leader, defends the government’s affordability programs — the national dental program for seniors on fixed incomes and the school food program he says feeds 400,000 children — and presses Bill C-34’s digital safety commission, which he says gives the law teeth through fines. He turns most exchanges into a direct question for his opponent, asking, “Does the member support the principle of having a commission?” He also raises hospice and palliative care in debates on medical assistance in dying.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
80 / 100 over 690 statements
Signal 70 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 91 / 100
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Wording that hides who did something, or who will.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 690 of 803 statements graded so far.

Statements 803

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Other big countries regulate streaming services just like we do, and they do not back down. The Conservatives are siding with American companies like Netflix instead of standing up for Canadian artists.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight a couple of things. Canada is one of seven countries that make up the G7, but it is not the only one that deals with this streaming issue. A number of other countries in the G7 do, countries like France and others. I don’t believe that they are going to allow themselves to be intimidated. The Conservatives are prepared to capitulate and say that we should get rid of any sort of streaming, that we should just stop it. They are advocating from an American perspective. They sound more like representatives of Netflix than members of Parliament advocating in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Conservatives start advocating for Canadians, in particular our arts community?

In response to a question from Jacob Mantle

“The Conservatives are siding with American politicians and companies like Netflix instead of protecting Canadian arts and culture. They keep giving in to the United States.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 9 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat sad to see Canada’s official opposition surrender our arts and cultural sovereignty to the United States. That is in fact what we have been witnessing from Conservative members like the one who just spoke, who made it very clear why he wants everyone’s gung-ho support of this resolution. He is advocating for what we would expect to hear from American politicians or for advocates for Netflix. That is the kind of advocacy we are seeing coming from the Conservative Party. Okay, the Conservatives want us to capitulate. This is not the first time. I remember, on Trump one, that they wanted us to capitulate. Why are the Conservative Party members giving up on our culture and heritage communities?

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“The Conservatives want to give up on protecting our arts and culture during trade talks. I want the member to explain why supporting the arts is important for Quebec and all of Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague’s thoughts on how it is that the Conservative Party appears to want to surrender our sovereignty on this particular issue. The Conservatives are, in essence, saying that because of negotiations that are taking place, we should just capitulate and have nothing to do with protecting our arts, our performing artists and our culture. I am wondering if the member would provide his thoughts on how important our arts programs are for provinces such as Quebec, and across Canada, and how important it is to support them in the different ways we do.

“The CRTC is independent from the government, and it set the fee on foreign streaming services. Other rich countries do this too to protect their arts. The Conservatives are siding with the United States instead of standing up for Canadians.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 27 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it would take a lot of time to address that particular speech, but let us stick to the motion itself. Time and time again, I have heard from the Conservative speakers on this. First of all, we need to recognize that the CRTC is independent of government. The CRTC is the one that set the price. When we talk about having a fee on international streaming, Canada is not alone. Other G7 countries have done that. Time and time again, Conservative MPs stand up and surrender Canadian sovereignty on the important issue of protecting our arts industry. Why is the Conservative Party already starting to capitulate and advocate on behalf of the United States as opposed to taking a look at what is in the best interests of Canadians? It is time that the Conservative Party stand up for Canadians.

“The CRTC is independent from the government. The Conservatives are siding with Donald Trump and the United States instead of protecting Canadian arts. Other major countries protect their arts industries. The Conservatives should protect Canada's control over its own arts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that the CRTC stands alone. It is at arm’s length from and independent of the government. That is a very important thing to note. The other thing I would highlight is that it is somewhat shameful to see Conservative member after Conservative member surrender Canada’s sovereignty as they advocate on behalf of Donald Trump and the United States with respect to the whole idea of applying something to protect the Canadian arts industry, something that, by the way, other G7 countries have done. The Conservatives are saying no to not only Canada having the opportunity to protect its industries, but also possibly even those other G7 countries. Why is the Conservative Party not recognizing the importance of Canadian sovereignty on the issue of the arts?

“Protecting Canada's independence means supporting our arts and culture. The Conservatives are wrong to say we should just do what President Trump wants. I want the member to say more about why our sovereignty and arts programs matter.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of the point that I have been trying to make is the fact that we have Canadian sovereignty. A part of that sovereignty means our culture and arts performers, many of the professions that my friend from the New Democratic Party has highlighted, are very important to who we are as a nation. What is disappointing is the degree to which the official opposition has capitulated its responsibility to protect Canadian sovereignty by indicating that we should just listen to what President Trump wants. I appreciate the comments on that by the member. Could she expand on the importance of Canadian sovereignty and on the issue of our arts programs?

“The CRTC made this choice on its own, and other major countries do the same thing. The Conservatives want to scrap it just because the United States does not like it. Canada is an independent country, and we do not have to do everything the United States says. We are still talking with them, and we will get a good deal for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is the independent, arm’s-length CRTC that has made the decision. I think it is important for us to recognize that Canada is not alone. There are other G7 countries that have what the Conservatives are saying we should not have as a nation. They believe that, because the United States has said we should not have one, we should abolish it. It is as simple as that. I wonder if the Conservatives believe that Canada owes it to its citizens to stand independently of the United States. We do not have to listen to everything it says. Negotiations are going on and they will continue. We will get the best deal for Canadians on that front.

“The Conservatives say rules from the broadcast regulator hurt Canada too much and are not worth protecting our arts. But arts create tens of thousands of jobs. We must protect Canadian industries while we negotiate with the United States. We will work to get the best deal for Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the principal arguments that the Conservatives are using is that what the independent body of the CRTC is proposing is having such a profound impact that it is not worth protecting our industry. The industry I am referring to is our arts industry, which creates and has literally tens of thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. They are trying to blame it all in regard to the United States. I think we have a responsibility to protect our industries as we go through the negotiations. We will strive to get the best deal for Canada, first and foremost. We understand that two and a half million Canadians rely on exports to the United States. There is a multitude of different policies that we are putting into place to protect those jobs and to grow our industries, but—

“Conservatives want to cut funding for the CBC, but they dodged my question about the CRTC. Does the Conservative Party support the CRTC or not?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting learning process in terms of what the Conservative members have been speaking about this morning. There is definitely a reaffirmation in terms of a lack of commitment to the CBC, as an example, and reaffirming their commitment to take away financing. When I asked the former speaker about their position on the CRTC and its future here in Canada, that question was sidestepped. I am very much interested in trying to flush out the Conservative position on the CRTC as an arm’s-length organization of the Government of Canada. Does the member or does the Conservative Party support the CRTC in general?

“I want the member to explain the Conservative position on the broadcast regulator. Do the Conservatives believe it should have any role at all?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal of contrast on the CRTC issue between the Conservatives and the government of the day. Can the member provide some clarification on what today’s right Conservative Party’s position is on the CRTC? Does it believe that it has a role? It seems to me that the Conservative positioning is to get out of the way. What is the Conservatives’ position on the CRTC?

“Quebec shows us how important arts and culture are to our identity. Organizations like the CBC and the CRTC protect our culture and both our official languages across Canada. I want to know what the member thinks about these independent groups.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I genuinely believe that Quebec leads the nation in terms of demonstrating just how important culture, heritage and arts programming are to our overall identity. When I think of the CRTC or CBC, whether it is TV or Radio-Canada, these are important institutions that are there to protect one of the things that Canadians value very much, the fact that we are a bilingual nation. I always appreciated, for example, that CBC has both French and English throughout the country. Things of that nature are positive. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that aspect of these independent, stand-alone organizations.

“Our government is taking the time needed to get the best trade deal for Canadians. The Conservatives take the American side, and the NDP wanted us to give in to Donald Trump before. We will not back down, and we are finding other countries to buy Canadian goods.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 44 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would even say something like that or even use the word “shame.” Let me remind him of what his good friend, the member of Parliament for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, when he travelled representing the Conservative caucus, had to say to Canadians about the U.S.-Canada trade situation. He said that we were having a “hissy fit.” That is what the Conservatives say when they go down to the States, and they are representing more of the American point of view than the interests of Canadians. There is no shame in having a government that recognizes that it will take the time necessary in order to get the best deal for Canadians. The difference is we are putting Canada first. That is what we are doing. The NDP, on round one with Donald Trump, wanted us to capitulate back then. We did not do it then, and under this Prime Minister, I can assure the member we are not going to do it now, because we are determined to get the best deal for Canadians. In the interim, we will look at other opportunities to sell Canadian exports. Serious commitments have been coming in. Trade agreements have been achieved. We will continue to work every day of the week to achieve more.

In response to a question from Serge Cormier

“The Conservatives do not support the arts. The arts create jobs, help young people, and entertain Canadians. The Conservatives should support this industry and our performers.”
  • Reply to a comment in debate

    Signal 27 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I was in third party opposition when Stephen Harper was prime minister. His attitude toward supporting our arts was lacking, to put it nicely. I can say that the Conservative Party today has moved even further to the right and has virtually abandoned any sort of support for our arts community. That constantly comes from the Conservative benches. My friend is very familiar with how important the arts community is to our nation. Not only does it provide opportunities for young people but also adds so much value to our economy in the form of jobs, not to mention the entertainment factor for every Canadian. The Conservatives need to readjust where they stand on the political spectrum and, at the end of the day, recognize the value of a critically important industry to Canada and to every Canadian, with a special emphasis on our performers.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“I disagree that we do not support the arts. Quebec does a great job supporting and growing its arts and culture, and other provinces can learn from it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, where I disagree with the member is with regard to any suggestion that there is a lack of support for the arts community. I think of the province of Quebec. The member himself resides in Quebec and there are 44 members of Parliament who represent that province. I can assure everyone that there is advocacy to promote and encourage further growth of the industry there. In many ways, Quebec leads Canada in how we can enhance and grow our culture and heritage arts communities. I appreciate the many efforts that are taken in Quebec, and I like to think that other provinces could learn something in terms of the advocacy that we see in Quebec for our arts programming.

In response to a question from Rachael Thomas

“We need fair rules between online streaming services and Canadian broadcasters. Canadian TV and music are very successful, but Conservative policies would hurt this industry. I want moderate Conservatives to stand up and defend Canadian culture.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that, domestically, we are talking about 25% compared to streamers that pay 15%. Levelling the playing field is important. We need to recognize that through the CRTC and organizations like CBC, CTV, Global and others, at the end of the day, we have had some sensational programming. Two right off the top of my head are Schitt’s Creek and Corner Gas. Both have been exceptionally successful. We can talk about artists from the past and current individuals like Céline Dion. There is so much talent in Canada. If it were up to the Conservatives, they would devastate that industry. By the actions, the talk and the speeches that have been delivered over the last number of years, the far-right Conservatives have clearly demonstrated that they do not support that industry, and I find that unfortunate. I look to members who are a little more moderate in the Conservative caucus to stand up, defend that industry and tell us how they believe this motion or motions from the past from the Conservative Party are going to support it. I am not hearing that, and I think we should all be concerned about that.

“The Conservatives want the government to cancel the broadcast regulator's new streaming rules. The government does not have the legal power to do that. The Conservatives are spreading false claims about censorship and taxes to make people angry and raise money. The broadcast regulator makes its own choices to protect Canadian artists and culture.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Charter of Rights guarantees religious freedom. One would think that the Conservative Party members would recognize that reality, because that is a reality, but it does not fit their political script. What they want to do is cause division and get people angry. How do they do that? They will say things like, the Liberals are trying to limit religious freedoms, even though the charter says differently. Now we are hearing them say that we want to tell Canadians what they can watch and what they cannot watch. There have been two speakers and the essence is there. Tin hats are out in full force on the Conservative benches. Let me make a suggestion to the members opposite to take a look at what has actually taken place, and not only through the CRTC, which, by the way, is an independent, arm’s-length organization that is not political. Conservatives try to simplify it by saying that it is a CRTC tax. I will provide comments on the issues where they try to give a false impression. I posed a question to the member opposite in regard to the motion itself. At the very end, the motion says this, which is the essence of the motion: the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC’s streaming tax increase and eliminate the streaming tax. The Conservatives are calling on the cabinet to do this, but the cabinet does not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party is asking the cabinet to do. When I posed a question about this, what did the member say? The member made reference to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council and the cabinet do not have the authority to do what the Conservative Party of Canada is asking to be done. That is the reality, and yet the Conservative Party members still try to heighten it by saying that it is a tax and that the federal government can make the change. This is just like what they do on other government legislation, where they try to give the false impression that the government is trying to limit what people can watch on TV or that it tells Canadians what they can and cannot watch, whether it is on the Internet or TV. It does a great disservice, I believe, to Canadians as a whole to put that kind of information forward and spread that kind of misinformation. However, I understand what the motivation often is for the Conservative Party members. It is not about good public policy. It is about how they can take an issue and generate thousands of emails, cause people to get angry and at the same time raise money for the Conservative Party of Canada. No one does it better than the Conservative Party of Canada, in terms of promoting fear and raising money based on misinformation. I have seen it first-hand, when I have received emails pumping up the fear factor and spreading misinformation. That is the essence of the motion we are debating today. The first question I asked was about an industry that is so important to Canada. Let us just put the CRTC to the side right now. When it comes to industry, I would challenge members to think about the communities they represent and the many aspirations of young people and others who want to be involved in the arts and in the promotion of Canadian heritage and to be performers or singers. There is an industry that exists and that is healthy. In the government benches, we want it to grow and we support its growth. Supporting its growth means ensuring there is a level playing field, and that is what we want to see. We want to see a level playing field, because we know that our culture, heritage and arts industry can survive and do exceptionally well under a level playing field, but that is not the case in different areas. The Conservatives talk about the CRTC increase that is being applied. They do not talk about the CRTC decrease for major broadcasting here in Canada. Why is that? We established the CRTC many years ago. The Conservatives had the opportunity, when they were in government, to get rid of it if they did not like it. They could have brought forward legislation to do so. They chose not to. I would be interested in hearing whether the Conservative Party of today supports the CRTC. To what extent does it support the CRTC? My fear is that the far right has taken over the Conservative Party, and these types of organizations and corporations, these arm’s-length organizations, would be on the chopping block. At the end of the day, in this particular area, the decision the CRTC has made really talks about the protection of our industries. It talks about levelling the playing field. That is important. I made reference to the constituents we represent. I think of the aspiring individuals we have today. I think of the numerous success stories that have been there in the past. I think of the programming and the artists we see today. The CRTC has played a role. CBC has played a role, both radio and TV. Some members heckle. Some participated with CBC. At the end of the day, we see the potential within that industry. I want to talk about Winnipeg. If someone wants to get a sense of the size and magnitude of the arts community, they should come to Winnipeg during Folklorama or during one of the many different arts festivals we have. I will focus on Folklorama and I will highlight two pavilions. Actually, there are four. I am talking about the Pearl of the Orient Philippine Pavilion sponsored by Magdaragat, which has been around now for 50 years. I was at a celebration just the other day for 50 years of Magdaragat. That organization, the musicians, the dance performers and the curators have been there for years. Many of them were performers virtually from the beginning. Those performers have participated on stages like the Rainbow Stage in Winnipeg. They have toured many other countries in the world, and they have even performed for royalty. This is just one pavilion. Members can take me up on it. If they come to Winnipeg during Folklorama, they will not just see two or four pavilions, but they will see over 45 different pavilions. If members tour those pavilions, they will see a lot of young people wanting to stay in the arts program in one form or another. We should be encouraging that involvement. We see it at many of the events that we attend at professional, semi-professional and amateur levels. Why would we want to give up on an industry that has been there for Canadians, generated jobs and contributed to our Canadian identity? That is the essence of what we are hearing from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are trying to simplify it by saying that it is all about taxation, as though this government does not care about the issues of taxation and affordability. The very first action by this Prime Minister was getting rid of the carbon tax, which was a significant tax break to Canadians. Within weeks of being in session, prior to the summer after the federal election, this Prime Minister and government brought in legislation to give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. People were talking about the housing issue, and what did we do? We brought in a GST exemption for first-time homebuyers in order to make it more affordable for young people, which was a tax break for first-time homebuyers. It does not stop there. In recent months, we have eliminated unfair telecom fees so consumers can get breaks when they are managing and looking for better plans and to prevent excessive fees being charged. What about the extension of the alcohol excise duty relief? We also decreased banking costs: Some of those basic charges have been reduced. When we talk about the issue, the Conservatives say that it is simplified tax, or they call it a streaming tax, but it is actually meant to get Canadians thinking about the broader issue of taxation. I can tell members that there are many initiatives. I have not even made reference to the suspension of the federal fuel tax, by 10¢ a litre, very recently. That is something we have put into place. There are opportunities where the government has taken advantage by providing substantial tax breaks. It is something the government is very much aware of and on top of. The government is not going to take the Conservative bait of using misinformation and trying to say the government has an authority through Governor in Council that it does not have, and do what is being asked for within this resolution. I look forward to hearing other members of the Conservative Party stand up and give the specific citation for the cabinet having the authority that they are telling Canadians we have. I would like to hear specifically where that authority is coming from when they say that cabinet has the authority to change the decision of the CRTC. I believe that the CRTC would have taken all considerations before making the decision to increase in certain areas and decrease, I am going to underline the word “decrease”, in other areas. I wonder what the position of the Conservative Party is about that decrease. That is one of the issues the Conservatives attempt to raise by bringing in this motion today. The other issue they are trying to raise is to plant the seed of fear or doubt in this government’s ability to get a trade agreement with the United States, when nothing could be further from the truth. They implied in the resolution we have before us today that this is going to have a severe impact on the trade discussions with the United States. I was listening to the member for Lethbridge, and what she had to say along with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who did not speak today but is the one who travelled to the United States. We remember that he spoke to the President and the vice-president and came back. Canadians will remember this. Can anyone imagine that leader of the Conservative Party had the member for Lethbridge and the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North travel to the United States to negotiate on the issue of trade? We can talk about a fear factor. What did the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North have to say about the issue after consulting with the President of the United States and the vice-president? He said that Canadians were having a “hissy fit”, trying to blame Canadians. Then, let us look at the motion we have today. The Conservatives are trying to imply that the Government of Canada is not doing its job on such an important file and that we do not understand the impact that policy has in general. In a few words, I can assure members as we get through this debate. No doubt, the Conservatives will stand up and talk about trade between Canada and the U.S., and try again to give the false impression that the government is dropping the ball, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is what they will do and we will see that throughout the day. What is the reality? At the end of the day, if I were to put it in a nutshell, we recognize that the government and the Prime Minister have made a commitment to not just settle for any deal. We are going to get the best deal that is in the best interests of Canadians when it comes to trade and CUSMA between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are in negotiations. The negotiations will continue in one form or another. We are very much concerned about issues like the tariffs situation and so much more. Believe it or not, as a government, we can do more than one thing at a time as we have clearly demonstrated. They can look at the billions of dollars of investment coming into Canada in terms of commitments through the actions of this Prime Minister and other ministers. They can look at the agreements and legislation for trade agreements that have been achieved already. We have had commitments to further advance trade agreements. These are all tangible actions that would generate billions of dollars of investment and opportunities, especially if tied into the major projects that we have listed that would benefit every region of our great nation. In conclusion, I tell my Conservative friends not to give up on our culture and our heritage. Support that industry. One of the best ways they can do that is if they want something—

“The Conservatives are using extreme right-wing conspiracy theories to scare people. They falsely claim the government is telling Canadians what they can watch and what they can say about religious texts.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 33 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, for those following the debate, since the start, we have heard from the far right. I mean, it is the extreme right. These people are more right than the Reform Party of the past. Talk about conspiracy theories. Two members are saying the government is trying to tell Canadians what to watch, that they cannot watch this or it is okay to watch that. An hon. member: Thank you for telling people, Kevin. Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the member opposite. Having said that, it is a fear factor, and no one does it better than today’s Conservative right party. I have been around for 35-plus years as a parliamentarian, and I have never seen a political entity cater to the far right as much as this party has. We have clearly seen a demonstration of that this morning. What a way to start off a morning. The member opposite says the government is telling people they have to be careful and they cannot say certain things regarding the holy scriptures. The Charter of Rights guarantees— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

“I want the member to show where the law gives the cabinet the power to overrule this independent regulator.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide some fact with respect to the motion itself. It concludes by saying that “the House call on the Liberal Cabinet to use their powers under the Broadcasting Act to reject the CRTC”, which is at arm’s length from government. Where in the Broadcasting Act does it say that the cabinet has the authority to do what the Conservatives believe it can do?

“The broadcasting regulator made its own choice. Our culture supports tens of thousands of jobs across Canada. I want the Conservatives to admit that these jobs and our heritage are important to Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the CRTC, at arm’s length from government, made a decision. The decision is not quite as simple as the Conservatives try to portray it. At the end of the day, we have tens of thousands of jobs throughout our nation that are very much directly connected with our culture and our heritage. It is a part of who we are, our Canadian identity, and how different of mediums can influence that. I can appreciate that the Conservatives do not give a darn about that aspect, but I am wondering if the member could recognize that those jobs are valuable jobs that contribute to every region of our country and that protecting our Canadian heritage does mean something for a lot of Canadians?

Private Members' Business ·

Canada Labour Code

“I support unions, but the government sometimes needs tools to deal with serious labour disputes. The NDP wants to take those tools away completely. Our government is already consulting with workers and businesses to improve labour laws the right way.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I too would like to start off, as the member opposite did, with regard to the 1919 general strike in Winnipeg. That general strike set history, not only for the union movement in the city of Winnipeg, but I would suggest for the world. In many ways, our union movement over the years is one of the reasons we have many of the social programs that we have today. The union movement overall has increased wages and benefits, and in many ways it has contributed to the lifestyle that we have here in Canada. Ultimately, I would argue, and I have said it many times in the past, that Canada is in fact the best place in the world to call home. I do not say that lightly, because I do believe that our union movement is one of the primary reasons for that. When I ask people what they love about Canada, I often find it is about policies that have ultimately made Canada that star in the world. That is why I have always been, since I was first elected, back in 1988, a strong union advocate. I see not only the true value and contributions that unions have made in the past and today, but also the potential that is there for the future, and I think the government does have an obligation to continue to work with the union movement, as we have over the last number of years. I disagree with the painting that the member for Winnipeg Centre is trying to portray to Canadians as a whole and to the union movement. The best agreement is a negotiated agreement. Those are the best agreements. I believe 95%‑plus of agreements are achieved without any stoppage of work or lockouts. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to walk along with many on picket lines. I have had the opportunity here and at the Manitoba legislature. I do not think one has to be a New Democrat in order to be a supporter of the union movement, and that is something the NDP members do not realize. I will take the challenge. When the New Democrats ask about people going back to work, do they not realize that there have been NDP governments that have actually ordered unions to go back to work? They have brought in back-to-work legislation. When I was first elected, we had a compromise brought in by Howard Pawley during the eighties that was called final offer selection. That was a compromise, because the NDP premier at the time promised to bring in anti-scab legislation but decided not to when he was elected as the premier. Instead, he came up with the compromise of final offer selection. I am a big fan of final offer selection. Back then, we talked a great deal about it. The NDP and the Liberals actually worked together on coming up with a compromise that would have ultimately ensured that Manitoba today would likely still have final offer selection. In fact, it was the member for Winnipeg South Centre’s father who negotiated with the NDP to come up with an agreement that would have seen its success. The union movement supported it in Manitoba in a very big way, but at the last minute, a bit of sabotage was done. I will not tell members which political party caused it, but I can say one thing: I and many members of the caucus back then were very disappointed, because we saw the value of it, just as we, for the first time, have anti-scab legislation at the national level, brought in by a Liberal government. Understanding the value of the worker has been amplified in the budget process. Look at the Red Seal program. We are talking about enhancing 80,000 to 100,000 highly skilled workers through the Red Seal program. That is a real commitment. We understand that when we talk about those major projects, the projects that we want to advance, union labour is not an option. It is essential that we get union labour involved. We will see that in many of the major projects that are on the horizon. I took a look at what is being suggested in Bill C-247 and I posed a question. I believe it was a legitimate question. As I say, different levels of government, and the national government on occasion, have recognized that there might be a situation where we need a tool to deal with a labour dispute. We have seen that. Different levels of government, different political parties, including New Democrats, have had to use those tools. Under this Prime Minister and this government, we have departments that are consulting. I believe the consultation has come to an end. Dozens of stakeholders came to the table to talk about labour. There is a serious attempt by the government to look at how we can improve labour conditions here in Canada. That is why I say we take it very seriously. That is why we are doing consultation with the different stakeholders. That is why I posed the question. I did not mean it in a sarcastic fashion whatsoever. It was a very specific question to the member for Winnipeg Centre. I even emphasized the federal New Democrats. Is it the federal New Democrats’ position? Even though she did not answer the question directly, I infer from the tail end of her answer that the answer is no, that they do not see any circumstance whatsoever where the national government should have any form of a tool if there is some form of a labour-business-management dispute that is causing issues. That is what I took from the comment from the member for Winnipeg Centre on behalf of the New Democratic Party. Consulting is critical on anything with respect to labour and labour relations. Working and recognizing the value is more than just talking about it. It is taking action where we can. That is why I have highlighted a couple of things I have seen in the last couple of years that I think are very meaningful and that provide opportunities. One of those achievements that I am very proud of, as I said, is the anti-scab legislation that we introduced not that long ago and ultimately passed. The other thing within this fiscal budget is that we have now proclaimed how important it is that we expand and promote programs such as the Red Seal program. I see the value, and I believe that Canadians see the value of that. Working with the different stakeholders, listening to what they would like to see, in a responsible fashion, with respect to our labour laws, I think is the responsible approach to take. That is the approach that this Prime Minister and the government have put into action. I am not 100% sure, but I believe if it has not concluded, it will be concluding shortly. The best way to change labour laws is to work, through consultations, with different stakeholders in order to come up with good, solid labour laws.